QUESTION: The King James Bible is a mere translation from
Greek to English. A translation can't be as good as the originals,
can it?

ANSWER: A translation cannot only be "as good" as the
originals, but better.

EXPLANATION: There are three "translations" spoken of in
the Bible. In all three cases, the translation referred to is better
than the original. Since we accept the Bible as our final authority
in all matters of faith and practice, ITS "practice" will have more
authority than any "mere human" opinion.

1. The first translation mentioned in scripture is found in II
Samuel 3:7-10.

7 "And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the
daughter of Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore
hast thou gone in unto my father's concubine?

8 Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ish-bosheth,
and said, Am I a dog's head, which against Judah do shew
kindness this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his
brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into
the hand of David, that thou chargest me to day with a fault
concerning this woman?

9 So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the LORD
hath sworn to David, even so I do to him;

10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to
set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from
Dan even to Beersheba."

After the death of King Saul in I Samuel 31, Abner, who had
been the captain of Saul's army installed Ishbosheth as King
instead of David. (II Samuel 12:8,9)

Later Ishbosheth and Abner had a falling out. Abner, in anger,
announces to Ishbosheth that he is going to "translate" the
Kingdom of Israel from Ishbosheth to David..

It is obvious by Abner's statement of II Samuel 3:9 that the
LORD wanted David to be king over all twelve tribes of Israel.
Therefore the "translation" of the kingdom of Israel to David was
BETTER than the "original" state which has a split kingdom with
David rightly ruling over one portion and Ishbosheth wrongly ruling
over the other section. (Remember the law of first mentions.)

2. The second translation spoken of in scripture is found in
Colossians 1:13.

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and
hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:"

Here the "translation" spoken of is the conversion of a lost
sinner to a new life in Jesus Christ. No one in their right mind could
even pretend that this translation is not a massive improvement
over the "original" condition.

3. The third translation found in the Bible is located in Hebrews
11:5.

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see
death; and was not found, because God had translated him:
for before his translation he had this testimony, that he
pleased God."

The word "translate" only appears five times in scripture. Once
in II Samuel, once in Colossians and the remaining three times here
in Hebrews 11:5.

A Christian with even a shallow knowledge of the Bible is
familiar with the story of Enoch from Genesis 5. Enoch walked
with God and is known to have pleased God. He was a prophet
(Judges 14) and a man of faith. God saw fit to physically take
Enoch to heaven so that he would not have to experience death.
This individual action is a miniature version of what Christians call
"The Rapture," mentioned in I Corinthians 15, I Thessalonians 4,
Titus 2 and various other places in the Bible. Since the word
"Rapture" appears nowhere in scripture a more proper name for
this future occurrence might be "The Blessed Hope" (Titus) or
"The Catching Up" (I Thessalonians) of "Our Translation"
(Hebrews).

It is obvious that Enoch's translation was an improvement over
his "original" condition.

Thus we see that every translation mentioned in our final
authority in all matters is an improvement over the original.

If you are a simple Bible believer you will have no trouble
accepting this. If you worship education or just hate to be wrong
you will reject this Bible fact as easily as you have rejected every
Bible fact that you couldn't agree with.

It should be noted here that the perplexed translators of both
the New American Standard Version and the New International
Version, when faced with this glaring contradiction of their own
personal prejudice, could not bring themselves to allow the word
"translation" in any of the above mentioned passages.